It was 11 am, and having dropped my wife off for a physical therapy session and skipped breakfast, I decided to indulge my self in a guilty pleasure: a McDonald’s sausage biscuit. Say what you will about Mickey D’s: their sausage biscuits beat Jimmy Dean’s, and don’t tempt me to talk about the 7-11 barely-edible version.
So I waited in the Drive-Thru line at the nearest branch (the one that only occasionally get its orders right), and when I finally reached the speaker, made a quick and simple request: “A hash browns and sausage biscuit, please. That’s all.”
A woman said in an impenetrable accent, “Sorry, no biscuit. Just [????].” I had no clue what she was saying. It sounded like “eh.” “Pardon me? Could you repeat that?,” I asked. “No biscuit. Only [????].” Well, I had already decided to cancel the order, since the whole point was the item that wasn’t available, but as a matter of principle, I was damned if I was going to leave without knowing what the mystery word was.
I tried to restrain myself, I really did. I have a heavy backlog of ethics topics and some Comments of the Day from all of you languishing. But a post headlined “The Worst Actors of All Time, Ranked” on a website called Definitions.org sucked me in, and I’m annoyed.
To begin with, the clickbait headline is a lie, several lies in fact. Since every actor in the list of 50 “worst actors” is alive and was active in the 21st century, it can’t possibly be an “all time” list. Then, once you click on the title, the list magically becomes “the 50 actors the critics can’t stand.” Well, at least that explains why Natalie Portman didn’t make the list of 50 Worst.
I’m not even sure what criteria one could or should use to decide on the “worst actors.” Most over-rated (like Portman)? Narrowest range? If an actor plays a particular type better than anyone, even if he or she never tries anything else, that doesn’t make them bad actors. As a director, I have always maintained that at least 85% of the public could play at least one role in a major movie well.
I’ve complained about Streeter before, but he really needs to be officially flagged as an Ethics Dunce, hence this Popeye post, an Ethics Alarms feature when my alternatives are to write or throw myself into a woodchipper. Streeter personifies the general principle that if a reader can tell your race while reading your work product about a topic that doesn’t have anything to do with race, you’re biased and laboring under a conflict of interest while using your job to advance personal agendas and grievances.
Streeter now writes the once iconic “Sports of The Times” column, and, the Times tells us, “he has a particular interest in the connection between sports and broader society, especially regarding issues of race, gender and social justice.” Translation: He exploits sports to advance his social justice hobby horses rather than enlighten readers about what he’s supposed to be writing about. His presence as the New York Times’ most prestigiously-presented sportswriter tells us exactly what the New York Times cares about, and it sure isn’t sports.
Sports is often about ethics, and Streeter’s Sunday Times column column today pretends to be about ethics. It’s called “Tokyo Olympians Are Showing That Grit Can Be Graceful,” and a few of his entries raise some great ethics issues. For example, I didn’t know, because watching the greed- and Larry Vaughn Effect-driven Olympics could not drag me from my disorderly sock drawer, that high jumpers Mutaz Essa Barshim of Qatar and Gianmarco Tamberi of Italy agreed to forgo a jumpoff that would have decided the competition so they could share the Olympic gold medal. That’s fascinating, because the deal could be the ultimate display of sportsmanship and respect, or a calculated decision to maximize personal gain while minimizing risk of loss at the expense of competition, which is, after all, what fans want to see. Streeter, however, can’t see the issue, and instead has to take his social justice warrior cheap shot. “They knew full well they would be blasted by those who claim that there must always be a single winner, that sharing is weak and — even worse — unmanly,” he writes. Streeter is so tiresome and predictable.
As a long-time Popeye fan, I established the Ethics Alarms designation in the spinach-gulping sailor’s honor to mark the times when I feel compelled to rail against a particularly persistent media distortion of reality. This morning’s New York Times sports section, in a bottom of the page article about ESPN firing one of its more political hosts now earns a Popeye for this bit of deliberate disinformation, aimed at smearing the President (of course). As has been a pattern at the Times, President Trump had little connection to the story but it was decided that a gratuitous attack was appropriate anyway.
Reporter Keven Draper wrote (and Times editors accepted) this:
Le Batard publicly criticized ESPN’s tepid approach to covering politics after President Trump tweeted that four Democratic congresswomen of color should “go back” to “the crime-infested places from which they came” — comments that even members of Trump’s party condemned as racist.
Although this is how the President’s admittedly stupid and inflammatory tweets have been misquoted since they were posted, that is not what he tweeted. Here are the tweets in question:
Now and then I see or read about something that seems too trivial for a post, but it gnaws on me and torments me, and I worry that, like Lewis Black’s famous over-heard “if it wasn’t for my horse, I wouldn’t have spent that year in college,” it will fester and eventually kill me. I’m going to launch a new category for these things, the Popeye, in honor of the gruff spinach-eating sailor’s quote that signaled a fight was coming, “That’s all I can stands, cuz I can’t stands no more!”
“But even if Mr. Sessions remains in his job, the relationship between him and Mr. Trump — the Alabama lawyer and the Queens real estate developer, an odd couple bound by a shared conviction that illegal immigration is destroying America — is unlikely to ever be the same, according to a half-dozen people close to Mr. Trump.”
Wait—when did Sessions or the President express the “conviction” that ” illegal immigration is destroying America”? I googled the phrase. Few references came up, but over half of those that weren’t quotes of this article came from pro-illegal immigrant sources, as their exaggerated characterization of what illegal immigration critics say or think. It is a false representation, explicitly designed to make such critics appear hysterical and foolish. Continue reading →
Ethics Alarms 